President Trump’s address to Congress last night was a dull affair. That is because he was trying to sound Presidential and so gave his standard stump speech without the insults and so came across as a dullard, the speech without any rousing rhetoric or programmatic weight. The talking heads that afterwards opined on the speech caught its gist quickly. Trump had drawn back from the offer of legalization to undocumented immigrants that he had hinted at earlier in the day and had pinched some of Paul Ryan’s talking points about what the bill to repeal and replace Obamacare would look like, but was hardly committed to that. Nor had Trump specified how to pay for an infrastructure program when the key issue there is whether to fund it through what would be very low interest bonds, which the Democrats would support, or through tax breaks to financiers, which the Democrats would not support. Trump could not bring himself to avoid telling lies, as when he said that the money from the European countries to pay for their own defense is just rolling in, because such money would not be payments to the United States but increases in their own defense budgets. Maybe Trump, as is his wont, was just speaking loosely, and so was not so much lying as misunderstanding the issue. Commentators mistake him by thinking there is much more there than there is. Chuck Schumer says Trump says one thing, his Populist message, and delivers another, which is a right wing program, but that is to mistake him as having a message at all rather than just a set of slogans that he endlessly repeats, those tied together only by Trump’s own meanness, not any ideological cogency. That’s all there is, folks. Stop expecting more.
The Mass Deportation
Well, we had to wait a month into his term for President Trump to do something really outlandish, and he finally has. He has issued deportation orders that could affect a majority of the eleven million or so illegal aliens in our midst because it seems that he is willing to deport even those who have engaged in such minor infractions as lying to an employer about their immigration status, and so the President is going far beyond the deportation of serious felons that was government policy when Obama was President. Trump also wants to scale up the number of agents available to do the job so that it can indeed be done. So much for those who said it would be impossible to deport all those people. It can be done. If you want to do something terrible, you can find a way, and also believe them when they say they are going to do it. Millions and millions of people are going to have their lives disrupted, perhaps irreparably, by being dumped into Mexico, even if they originally come from nations in Central America, Mexico not wanting them and perhaps not providing them with resettlement services unless the United States pays for those. Fat chance. So we are facing a major catastrophe. Rescinding the Obama doctrine on people using the bathroom of the sex with which they identify is a bad and inhumane policy, but it affects very few people while the deportation orders affect, as I say, up to ten million people.
The only ones spared by the Trump deportation orders are the DACA children, though they might lose their parents to deportation. In retrospect, which means a few years time, this entire episode will be seen as inhumane as Andrew Jackson moving the Cherokees west, but in the meantime, arguments are made that Trump is, after all, just keeping a campaign promise, and that nations, after all, have to defend their borders. Well, he also promised to move the capital of Israel to Jerusalem but better judgment prevailed. Why create problems where there are none? And the idea of carefully protecting our borders against immigrants is less than a century old. Immigrants entering through Castle Garden, which was the entry point to New York before Ellis Island was established, just signed in and went on their way to local hotels and rooming houses. And at Ellis Island the main concern was communicable disease. Vetting of immigrants did not start until after the First World War. Americans should be proud of their tradition of open borders even if we do need to vet against Islamic terrorists, but we already do that, so what is the problem?
So far, the President has been bluster without consequence and I had hoped but not really thought that he would content himself with that. Even the order halting immigration from seven mostly Moslem countries made a certain amount of sense. A President has a great deal of leeway in determining what is and what is not a threat to the country. He can include in his calculations a hunch about where or from where an attack might take place. So it was not unreasonable to think that the seven unstable countries might be the source of attacks even if they had not been so until now, and it was reasonable to exclude Egypt and Saudi Arabia from the ban because those are erstwhile allies, whatever their histories. Consistency in principle is not the most important thing in foreign policy. We enlisted Vichy generals and admirals and made supposed common cause with Stalin all in order to win the Second World War. So why pick an additional fight with Pakistan when we don’t have to. Yes, the ban on immigrants may have made life inconvenient for some people, delaying them in their travels, but not for all that many, and virtually any act of foreign policy is going to inconvenience some people, and that is not enough reason to not go ahead with it. Yes, it was bad policy because some people were indeed inconvenienced and, more than that, frightened that they would never get to this country, but the new version of that travel ban should get rid of the obvious clinkers, like keeping out people who were already holders of green cards. So, all in all, the real problem with the ban was that there was no real point to it, no real danger that it avoided, all of it just the product of Trump’s simplistic imagination to do something no matter how irrelevant it is to the problem at hand so long as it suits his sense of what is right, which means find a way to punish people for what he takes to be the bad behavior of the world.
But this deportation edict is worse than that. It not only addresses a problem that doesn’t exist, which is that illegal immigrants bring crime with them, when in fact they commit crimes less frequently than American citizens, but instead provide workers necessary to the country because they fill jobs American citizens are unwilling to fill, but because the orders bring with them a great deal of real suffering to a great number of real people, all to salve Trump’s conscience that it is just not right for illegals to be here at all. The infliction of gratuitous suffering would seem to be the opposite of justice but it is in fact the substance of justice. Think of the Salem Witch Trials and the Holocaust, both launched in the name of solemn principles and undertaken with the sense of more in sorrow than in anger (look at the Nazi propaganda of the time), but really undertaken to alleviate in draconian manner a problem that did not exist.
"I Inherited a Mess"
The most startling quote from President Trump’s notably vituperous press conference last week was not his jousting with the press the way Nixon, in his last days, had jousted with the likes of Dan Rather. Instead, it was the remark that provided the New York Times with its headline the next day: “I inherited a mess”. This was not one of Trump’s many lies. Rather, it showed just how bad his judgment is on foreign policy, even if there are many voters who agreed with him about a point he had been making since the Eighties, which is that the government makes disastrous foreign policy choices all the time. For Trump, gloom and doom is a reflex reaction; for the population as a whole, I take it, it is because they have such a short term memory that they forget how bad things have been and also have a very poor imagination for conceiving just how very bad they could become again.
Read MoreOne or Two States
The self inflicted crises in the still less than one month old Trump Administration keep coming so fast and furious. There was the immigration ban, now pushed out of the news, though there still remains on the table whether the scale of deportations has increased since Trump took over. There was the Flynn resignation, the furor over which suggests that that there is much more to be said about the connection of the Trump campaign and the Trump Cabinet with the Russians than has yet been made public, but that insiders already know there is something to it, for otherwise why care so much that one official proved unsuitable for his job. Then there is Netanyahu coming into town to announce with the President that the time of the two state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is over, to be replaced, possibly, by a one state solution. This, actually, may be a good idea, even though the New York Times dismisses it simply because it is not what has been United States policy for twenty years now. Let us sort out the meaning of the proposal, Netanyahu, we may assume, fully comprehending what this initiative is while the President, as usual, falls for a phrase and can’t look beyond that.
Read MoreA Democratic Resurgence
Democrats are down in the dumps that they lost the Presidency to such an unworthy contender. It is one thing for Hillary to have lost the Presidency the first time to Barack Obama, who is so charming that he could have won a third term if he had been allowed to run. After all, the economy is chugging along and foreign affairs are under control, Obama having declared the Middle East a place to stay out of. But it was quite another thing for her to have lost to Donald Trump, the most unqualified candidate in history, who is boorish and inarticulate even if also outspoken. The Donald, all the prognosticators said, would have to pull an inside straight to win, and that is just what he did.
Read MoreWhat To Do With the Supreme Court
Democrats are wondering whether and how fiercely to oppose Donald Trump’ nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Some say he is too far to the right; others say it is revenge time for Republican blockage of Merritt Garland who was nominated by Obama but never given even a hearing before the Republican controlled Senate. As Rachel Maddow pointed out, approval of Supreme Court nominees has become particularly contentious since Gore v. Bush, but it goes back to the denial of a seat to Robert Bork, who was extremely well qualified, a quality which Trump pointed out about his own nominee last night. So the debate is about Senate politics. Should the Democrats oppose the nomination and possibly get the Republicans to change the rules, which is the so called “Nuclear Option” because it would mean that so many of the customs by which the Senate operates would no longer be respected by one side or another and the Senate might well as a consequence grind to a halt.
Read MoreThe First Week
The things the President has done during the first week of his Administration are mainstream Conservative or largely symbolic and so do not yet set forth changes of policy that are as radical as the Trump posturing would have the citizenry believe, though it is also the case that really bad things may well arrive in our future, and so justify Liberal forebodings. Trump is, for the moment, instituting the policies he campaigned on, which is something for which new incumbents of the Presidency usually receive compliments because they have remained true to their promises, but Trump’s campaign issues were largely jokes, not of serious moment, and so it is largely of no consequence that he is carrying them out.
Read MoreThe Radicalism of Donald Trump
No one knows what Donald Trump will do when he assumes office this Friday, which for me and the people I know seems like the first day of the Apocalypse, the sun darkening at high noon and the ghosts of FDR’s euphonious arch-villains, “Martin, Barton, and Fish”, arising from crypts beneath the Capitol Visitors Bureau to carry out their job of stripping America not only of Obamacare and what is left of the Great Society but also of the legislation that goes back to the New Deal and to the Square Deal of Theodore Roosevelt. The Cabinet appointees said about as much in their confirmation hearings. The nominee for Interior Secretary talked about how much he admired Theodore Roosevelt but also said we have to rethink the use of national lands so as to allow for more drilling. Trump’s nominee for Health and Human Services made clear that he wants to gut Medicare. Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education wants to reverse the seventy year old Supreme Court decision that government cannot support parochial education for children. So what his ultra-right Cabinet wants to do is clear, but what Trump wants to do is not.
Read More
Untrustworthy People
All people are to some extent or other trustworthy. We trust people to keep their word or show up at work or to respect a confidence-- most of the time. It would be very difficult for social life to proceed if this were not the case. We would find ourselves in some feral case of society, a Hobbesian world where all doors had to be locked, people always asked to show their credentials, people always looking over their shoulders, unless there were an all pervasive state to look to the enforcement of what are generally considered normal states of freedom or lack of fear. And all people are also sometimes or other untrustworthy in that they lapse in picking up things at the store, can be unfaithful to their spouses, and in many different ways shade the truth to leave an impression that does not square with the truth.
Read MoreThe Normalized Presidency
The whole notion of discussing an issue is an idea that eludes Donald Trump, and that served him very well during the campaign, where he reduced his opponents to discrediting adjectives, and pronounced policies that were more sentiments than plans to be carried out. Yes, he would build a wall and the Mexicans would pay for it, but that was just a way to express his disdain for illegal immigrants rather than the glimmerings of an actionable plan. Hillary couldn’t get him to engage on issues because those are objective matters about which you might draw up better or worse plans, and so she instead, perhaps on the basis of her focus groups, decided to point out the flaws in his character, but those arguments did not have much impact on the voters she needed however convincing they were to the voters in the coastal states that she easily won.
Read MoreThe First Skirmish
Two metaphors for politics are that politics is like a sports competition and that politics is like war. Neither of these metaphors get to the core of things. Yes, politics is like a game in that there are winners and losers and that skill is combined with team cooperation and luck in some uncertain proportion so as to make for a win, but the reward for athletic achievement, aside from the hugh salaries for those who are the very best, is the medal or the certificate, a bit of prestige that lasts a lifetime, while there are more significant impacts for politics, which can lead to programs where people starve or are made well or wars that lead to cataclysmic disaster. Nor is politics like a war. The means to the end in politics are more restrained than they are in warfare and in politics it is not always clear who won and who lost in that people can reinterpret their programs to be, when legislated, what they wanted (or didn’t want) in the first place. Romneycare became Obamacare and that was reason enough for Romney to denounce it. That is what happens in politics. But these two metaphors are the best we can do and so let us consider what we might call the first skirmish of the Trump Administration as being over Russian hacking, understanding a skirmish as a miniature battle used to probe the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy while one moves one’s own forces into a more advantageous position for a major encounter of forces.
Read MoreThe Southern Electorate
It is easy enough to find fault for Hillary losing the election. Her staff did not spend enough resources on Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, and so Trump took the election because of narrow margins of victory in those three states. The media did not do their job in that they first treated Trump as a clown and so gave him too much air time and never properly vetted him. And, of course, Hillary failed to provide either a galvanizing positive message or personality. Couldn’t the campaign have turned the corner by turning out some twenty thousand more women taken with the idea of the first woman President? The campaign was not able to make them care. But the real culprits, which is always the case in a democracy, is the voting public, which did not turn out because of insufficient enthusiasm for Hillary as a candidate or else decided to vote for someone who is a bigot and an ignoramus. Mind you, that does not make the voters bigoted or ignorant. It just means that is who they voted for and that is condemnation enough.
Read MoreThe Fight Over the Cabinet
Given the way he came to the Presidency, as an insurgent candidate with, at best, the tolerance of the Republican Party and its Congressional majorities, rather than with their blessings, Trump could have gone either way in choosing his Cabinet. He could have picked people just as much on the fringes of the party as he is, filled with the wacky ideas that inspired his supporters, even if those ideas hardly constituted an ideology in the sense of a coherent set of ideas that Trump felt obliged to carry out as best he could when he won the unlikely victory and became President. Or else he could choose a cabinet drawn from the permanent Establishment so as to carry out a traditional Republican, which means Conservative, political program, which is what Eisenhower did and what Reagan did, Reagan able after picking his Cabinet to sit back or clear brush at his ranch. If Trump had decided mostly on the latter course, that would be much to the relief of onlookers like myself who prefer competence above everything else and think that the Republic is therefore likely to muddle through, especially because the Conservative economic program, I believe, is so mistaken that it might drive us into a recession but likely not worse, and that the foreign policy program would probably not be much more belligerent than what it would have been with Hillary, although one can never count on foreign policy principles not going off the deep end, which is what happened when the George W. Bush people, who had seemed quintessentially Establishment, took power and get us entangled in a way it would take eight years of a successor to Bush to get us out from under.
Read More
Silences
There was a newspaper report of an armed gunman who said, when told by his victim that it was a policeman that he was holding up, “You know, now I have to kill you.” That is the stuff of gangster melodrama, and may even be true. The exchange reminded me of "The Asphalt Jungle" which was a remarkable movie because, among other things, it violated the movie convention whereby people who have others at gunpoint keep talking until the person with the gun pulled on him finds a way out of the situation. Rather, Louis Calhern just starts to sweat and lose his game face as he realizes that his erstwhile comrades in crime are going to kill him. However much they talk, the gangsters in "The Asphalt Jungle" don’t talk about what they are doing while they do it.
Why does the movie convention violated by "The Asphalt Jungle" make sense? Why do characters say what they are going to do rather than just do it? That is the same thing as asking why such dialogue occurs in real life, because the movie convention is simply exploiting and adopting a usage of everyday life, in that dramatic tension arises from whether an assailant will speak or not. So why did the gunman in the newspaper report act the way he did? (Here, I am engaged in applying Georg Simmel’s dictum, which is contrary to the accepted wisdom, that the sociologist can analyze fictional as well as real situations because both make use of the formal properties of social life.)
Read More
Compensating Mechanisms
Let us posit the following characteristics of the incoming President. He is mean spirited; he doesn’t know very much about any of the issues he will have to address; his own words and actions will be uncoordinated and arbitrary, subject only to his own whimsy; he will only reluctantly listen to his advisors but will, hopefully, accede to their greater knowledge and judgment. How will his administration, his political allies and adversaries, both foreign and domestic, cope with these facts, given that they want the administration to act rationally if for no other reason than it will serve their interests for it to do so? What are the compensating mechanisms which will settle in so the Trump Administration is not as out of whack as it might be?
Read MoreGovernment by Tweet
The press, and especially the cable channels, are feeling guilty for having given Trump so much space and air time at the beginning of his campaign so he could make a fool of himself before he burnt out as a Presidential candidate, never to be more than a sidebar, sort of like Herman Cain. Now, to compensate, they find everything he says the result of ignorance and bad judgment. And that is true of much of what he says, but much of it, so far, is on the mark. Save your ammunition until he does or says something really bad.
Read More